Literature DB >> 17218998

Accommodative stimulus response curve of emmetropes and myopes.

Anna C H Yeo1, Kok Kai Kang, Wilfred Tang.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Myopes are suspected to be poorer at responding to accommodative stimuli than emmetropes, and this may worsen the degree of their myopia. The study aims to compare the abilities of young adult emmetropes and myopes in responding to accommodative stimuli, as indicated by their Accommodation Stimulus Response Curves (ASRCs) in a predominantly Chinese population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen emmetropes and 33 myopes aged between 16 and 23 years (mean, 18.6 +/- 1.2) were recruited, of whom 11 were progressing and 22 were non-progressing myopes. The ASRC gradients of subjects were measured using the methods of decreasing distance series (DDS), positive (PLS) and negative lens series (NLS).
RESULTS: The ASRC is method dependent. The gradients of the curves are significantly different among 3 methods of measurement using single-factor ANOVA (F3.057 = 44.815, P <0.01). The slopes of the accommodative errors of all subjects were steeper using the NLS method, and the lags of accommodation increased with elevated demands. No significant differences in ASRC gradients were found between emmetropes, non-progressing myopes and progressing myopes for the range of accommodative demands for each method. Progressing myopes showed the highest error towards the higher demand compared with the emmetropes and non-progressing myopes.
CONCLUSION: Accommodative responses of myopes were more sluggish though there were no statistical differences in ASRC gradients between emmetropes and myopes. It is not certain if the poorer accommodative responses were a cause, or a consequence, of myopia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17218998

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Acad Med Singap        ISSN: 0304-4602            Impact factor:   2.473


  5 in total

1.  Accommodative Gain in Relation to Perceived Target Clarity.

Authors:  Tawna L Roberts; Heather A Anderson; Karla K Stuebing
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.973

2.  Intraocular Pressure Changes during Accommodation in Progressing Myopes, Stable Myopes and Emmetropes.

Authors:  Yan Liu; Huibin Lv; Xiaodan Jiang; Xiaodan Hu; Mingzhou Zhang; Xuemin Li
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-30       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Comparison of three monocular methods for measuring accommodative stimulus-response curves.

Authors:  Yunyun Chen; Wanqing Jin; Zhili Zheng; Chuanchuan Zhang; Huiling Lin; Björn Drobe; Jinhua Bao; Hao Chen
Journal:  Clin Exp Optom       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 2.742

4.  Eye exercises of acupoints: their impact on refractive error and visual symptoms in Chinese urban children.

Authors:  Zhong Lin; Balamurali Vasudevan; Vishal Jhanji; Tie Ying Gao; Ning Li Wang; Qi Wang; Ji Wang; Kenneth J Ciuffreda; Yuan Bo Liang
Journal:  BMC Complement Altern Med       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 3.659

5.  The effect of image resolution of display types on accommodative microfluctuations.

Authors:  Niall J Hynes; Matthew P Cufflin; Karen M Hampson; Edward Ah Mallen
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 3.992

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.